AcrySof IQ Research Articles

The PanOptix Trifocal IOL vs the ReSTOR 2.5 Active Focus and ReSTOR 3.0-Add Multifocal Lenses: A Study of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Uncorrected Visual Performance.

PurposeTo compare spectacle independence, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and dysphotopsia after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with the AcrySof PanOptix trifocal or the ReSTOR +2.5/3.0 D or ReSTOR +2.5 D mini-monovision multifocal IOL.Patients and MethodsProspective, open-label, multicenter analysis of PROs, spectacle independence, and satisfaction among patients undergoing cataract surgery who had been implanted at least 1 month previously with AcrySof IQ PanOptix or PanOptix Toric trifocal (n = 59) IOLs bilaterally. Results were compared to outcomes from a similar study with the AcrySof ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 or the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 mini-monovision lens [n = 191]).ResultsSpectacle independence was significantly higher in the PanOptix cohort, with 83% of patients “never” needing glasses for any activity versus 36% in the ReSTOR 2.5 mini-monovision and 34% in the ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 cohorts. No significant differences in patient satisfaction rates were reported between the three cohorts. Glare and halo were rated “extremely” noticeable more with the PanOptix (10%) than with the ReSTOR 2.5 mini-monovision (1%) or ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 (3%). BCVA differences were not statistically significant, and no new safety concerns were reported.ConclusionThe AcrySof PanOptix trifocal provides significantly greater spectacle independence across all measured activities than the AcrySof ReSTOR multifocal IOLs.

Comparative Surface Imaging Study of Multifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses.

To analyse and compare the surface topography and roughness of three different types of diffractive multifocal IOLs. Using scanning electron microscope (SEM, Inspect F, 5.0 KV, maximum magnification up to 20,000) and atomic force microscope (AFM, Park Systems, XE-100, non-contact, area profile comparison, 10 × 10 µm, 40 × 40 µm), the surface quality of the following diffractive IOLs was studied: the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon, USA), the AT LARA 829MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), and Tecnis Symfony (Johnson&Johnson Vision, USA). The measurements were made over three representative areas (central non-diffractive optic, central diffractive optic, and diffractive step) of each IOL. Roughness profile in terms of mean arithmetic roughness (Ra) and root-mean-squared roughness (Rq) values were obtained and compared statistically. In SEM examination, all IOLs showed a smooth optical surface without any irregularities at low magnification. At higher magnification, Tecnis Symfony showed unique highly regular, concentric, and lineate structures in the diffractive optic area which could not be seen in the other studied diffractive IOLs. The differences in the measured Ra and Rq values of the Tecnis Symfony were statistically significant compared to the other models (p < 0.05). Various different topographical traits were observed in three diffractive multifocal IOLs. The Ra values of all studied IOLs were within an acceptable range. Tecnis Symfony showed statistically significant higher surface Ra values at both central diffractive optic and diffractive step areas. Furthermore, compared to its counterparts, Tecnis Symfony demonstrated highly ordered, concentric pattern in its diffractive surfaces.

Could anatomical changes occurring with cataract surgery have a clinically significant effect on effective intraocular lens position?

To assess if the calculation of the effective lens position (ELP) of two different monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) could be optimized by considering the potential anatomical changes occurring after cataract surgery. Prospective, descriptive, single-center study involving 472 eyes of 280 subjects (mean age 73.5years) undergoing cataract surgery that were divided into two groups according to the IOL implanted: group 1330 eyes with AcrySof IQ SN60WF (Alcon), and group 2142 eyes with Akreos MI60L (Bausch + Lomb). Refractive and biometric changes were evaluated during a period of 6-month follow-up with an optical biometer (considering potential measurement artifacts). Comparison of ELP estimated with the SRK-T formula (ELPSRK-T) and ELP calculated considering clinical real data was made (ELPAXL-corrected clinical). Besides significant changes in refraction (p ≤ 0.020), a significant increase in anterior chamber depth (ACD) (p < 0.001) and a significant reduction in the axial length (AXL) (p < 0.001) were detected at 1month after surgery. Mean 1-month postoperative AXL change was - 0.08 ± 0.06 and - 0.10 ± 0.11mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.001), with no significant changes afterward. Mean difference between ELPSRK-T and ELPAXL-corrected clinical was 0.17 ± 0.39 and - 0.23 ± 0.43mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001). A strong and statistically significant correlation of these differences with the prediction refractive error was found in both groups (group 1, r = - 0.723; group 2, r = - 0.819; p < 0.001). The estimation of ELP using the SRK-T formula for the two IOLs evaluated may be optimized considering biometric changes with surgery, helping to understand better some problems of refractive unpredictability.

Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths.

Purpose:The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of three newer generation formulae (Barrett Universal II, EVO, Hill-RBF 2.0) for calculation of power of two standard IOLs—the Acrysof IQ and Tecnis ZCB00 across all axial lengths.Methods:In this retrospective series, 206 eyes of 206 patients, operated for cataract surgery with above two IOLs over the last 6 months, were included in the study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained from LenstarLS900. By using recommended lens constants, the mean error for each formula was calculated and compared. Then, the optimized IOL constants were calculated to reduce the mean error to zero. Mean and median absolute errors were calculated for all eyes and separately for short (AL<22.5 mm), medium (22.5–24.5 mm), and long eyes (>24.5 mm). Absolute errors and percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were compared.Results:Prediction error with using recommended lens constants was significantly lower in the Barrett Universal II formula as compared to the other two formulae. However, after optimizing lens constants, there were no significant differences in the absolute errors between the three formulae. The formulae ranked by mean absolute error were as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.304 D), EVO (0.317 D), and Hill-RBF (0.322) D. There were no significant differences between absolute errors in the three formulae in each of the short-, medium-, and long-eye subgroups.Conclusion:With proper lens constant optimization, the Barrett Universal II, EVO, and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulae were equally accurate in predicting IOL power across the entire range of axial lengths.

Multicenter Evaluation of Time, Operational, and Economic Efficiencies of a New Preloaded Intraocular Lens Delivery System versus Manual Intraocular Lens Delivery.

PurposeTo evaluate intraoperative intraocular lens (IOL) delivery time and total surgical case time using the UltraSert preloaded delivery system (System U) during routine cataract surgeries and to compare with the manually loaded Monarch delivery system (System M). Physician satisfaction with System U was also assessed.Patients and MethodsIn this prospective observational study, subjects ≥18 years old underwent cataract surgery in 1 eye and received the AcrySof IQ IOL via the manually loaded System M (n=103) or the AcrySof IQ IOL model AU00T0 via the preloaded System U (n=93). Procedures were digitally recorded by an external camera or by a camera within the operating microscope. Device preparation, IOL delivery, and IOL positioning times were evaluated by 2 independent graders. Pearson χ2 test or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables (all tests were 2-sided and performed at a 5% α-level). Physician satisfaction levels were assessed using questionnaires.ResultsLens delivery time was similar for System U and System M (12.9±5.1 and 12.2±6.3 s; P=0.412). Mean device preparation time for System U was significantly shorter compared with System M (30.3±6.6 versus 59.8±31.0 s; P<0.05). This resulted in a significantly shorter total intraoperative time (device preparation + lens delivery) with System U versus System M (43.0±8.6 versus 72.0±32.5 s; P<0.05). Total surgical case time (device preparation + lens delivery + lens positioning and unfolding) was shorter for System U versus System M (56.6±12.6 versus 89.6±34.6 s; P<0.05). Physicians reported greater satisfaction levels with System U compared with other devices.ConclusionUse of the preloaded delivery system (System U) resulted in faster device preparation and reduced total surgical time compared with the manually loaded system (System M). System U was intuitive to use, and physicians preferred it to other devices.

Tolerance to Residual Refractive Errors After Trifocal and Trifocal Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation.

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 0.50 diopter (D) positive or negative defocus on visual function in patients implanted with trifocal and trifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs). The study included patients implanted with the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL or the PanOptix Toric. Visual acuity (VA) at high (100%), medium (50%) and low (10%) contrast, contrast sensitivity function (CSF), and halo perception were assessed three months after surgery. Explorations were performed with corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), with a positive defocus of +0.50D (myopization) and with a negative defocus of -0.50D (hyperopization). The study included 60 eyes of 60 patients (30 eyes with PanOptix and 30 eyes with PanOptix Toric). For both groups, VA was better for all contrast settings at the CDVA situation (P<0.05 in all cases). For low spatial frequencies, no differences in CSF were found among the three refractive situations in either group. For higher frequencies, the results showed an overall trend for better CSF results for the CDVA situation. The halo effect was lower for the CDVA situation if compared to myopization and hyperopization in both the PanOptix and the PanOptix Toric groups (P<0.05 for all cases). There is an impact on visual quality and halo perception in patients implanted with trifocal or trifocal toric IOLs even for low residual refractive errors.

Rotation Characteristics of Three Toric Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.

PurposeTo evaluate the rotational stability of the three monofocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) via data from an online toric IOL back-calculator.MethodsA retrospective data review of an online toric IOL back-calculator, which allows users to input preoperative toric planning information, postoperative lens orientation, and subjective refraction. Inputted data were used to determine the optimal orientation of the toric IOL to minimize residual refractive astigmatism. Aggregate data from 3/11/2019 to 3/10/2020 were extracted and validated. Only data with ≥0.5D of residual refractive astigmatism were used in the study. Pre-operative intended IOL orientation and post-operative IOL orientation were used to calculate IOL rotation.ResultsAfter validation, 5397 entries were determined to represent patient eyes, of which 3238 represented the three monofocal IOLs evaluated. The rate of rotation for AcrySof, TECNIS, and enVista Toric IOLs was 72.7%, 83.4%, and 83.0%, respectively, and location only significantly impacted TECNIS IOLs. The magnitude of rotation for rotated IOLs was similar for all models and was significantly more for IOLs initially placed in the oblique axis. All IOL models tended to rotate in a counterclockwise direction (53.2%, 73.0%, 69.7%, respectively; p<0.05), and the tendency was greater for IOLs initially located horizontally.ConclusionThe AcrySof IQ Toric IOL was more rotationally stable than both the TECNIS and enVista Toric IOLs; there was no significant difference in rotational stability of the latter two.

Anterior capsule coverage and rotational stability of an acrylic toric intraocular lens.

To investigate factors related to the rotational stability of an acrylic toric intraocular lens (IOL). Four ophthalmic surgical sites in Japan. Prospective case series. The study included 120 eyes of 120 patients undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of a toric IOL (AcrySof IQ, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). At 1 hour postoperatively, the area of continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) was measured, and the state of anterior capsule coverage on the IOL optic (total on or partial on) was recorded. The toric IOL axis orientation was assessed at the end of surgery and at 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively. Multiple regression analysis was performed to explore any clinical factors relevant to IOL rotation from the end of surgery to 6 months postoperatively. The explanatory variables included age, anterior chamber depth preoperatively, axial length, type of corneal astigmatism (with-the-rule, against-the-rule, or oblique astigmatism), area of CCC, state of anterior capsule overlap on IOL optic (total coverage vs partial coverage), and surgical sites (surgeons). The multiple regression analysis in 110 eyes of 110 patients indicated that anterior capsule overlap on the IOL optic was the only variable associated with IOL rotation at 6 months postoperatively (P = .0482). The mean absolute rotation at 6 months was 1.96 ± 1.81 degrees in the total on group and 3.79 ± 3.12 degrees in the partial on group (P = .0004). Rotational stability of a single-piece, acrylic toric IOL was better in eyes with total anterior capsule coverage than that in those with partial anterior capsule coverage on the IOL optic.

Straylight in Different Types of Intraocular Lenses.

PurposeTo show the importance of measuring the angular distribution of straylight as an in vitro test for intraocular lenses (IOLs).MethodsThe optical integration method was implemented to measure the point spread function, up to 5.1°, of IOLs immersed in a wet cell. The straylight parameter was calculated as the product of the point spread function by the squared angle. The effect of the scattered light is shown in extended images of a target surrounded by headlamps as glare sources. Three different IOLs were tested: (1) AcrySof IQ SN60WF, monofocal, (2) AcrySof IQ PanOptix, trifocal, and (3) Tecnis Symfony ZRX00, bifocal with extended depth of focus. Measurements were compared to previously reported clinical studies where the same IOL models were implanted.ResultsThe mean amount of scattered light, between 1.0° and 5.1°, generated by each IOLs were, in deg2sr–1 units: (1) 1.2, (2) 12.1, and (3) 33.4. Lens (3) present a high amount of straylight related to a halo of an approximate diameter of 2°.ConclusionsIn vitro measurements of the angular distribution of the point spread function of different types of IOLs showed important aspects related to their manufacturing quality. These results are in line with previous clinical findings where glare sensitivity was tested in the same angular range.Translational RelevanceIn vitro measurement of angular dependence of straylight in IOLs, regardless their design, provides a valuable feedback to improve their optical quality. The minimization of the amounts of straylight positively impacts the recurrence of photic phenomena.

Refractive Lens Exchange in Hyperopic Presbyopes with the Acrysof IQ Panoptix Intraocular Lens: One-Year Results and Analysis of the Literature.

PurposeTo assess the functional and refractive outcomes in hyperopia and presbyopia correction by clear lens exchange with the intraocular trifocal artificial lens (IOL) Acrysof IQ Panoptix implant at 1 year.Materials and MethodsA number of 128 eyes (64 patients) underwent clear lens exchange with placement of the trifocal IOL Acrysof IQ Panoptix implant for hyperopia and presbyopia. Prior to the surgery the patients had a complete ocular examination. In all cases the artificial lens was implanted in the bag without any intraoperative complications. Visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near and ocular refraction were evaluated at 4 weeks, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.ResultsThe mean age was 53.49 ±7.377 years old (range 40–73 years). As high as 51.57% of the patients were males and 48.43% were females. The mean achieved refraction was 0.26 ± 0.73D. Almost 60.93% of patients were within ±0.25D of the target refraction, with 82.03% eyes within ±0.50D of the planned correction. At 1 year after surgery, 96.45% of eyes had a stable refraction (p >0.05). At 1 year, a total of 92.25%, 89.92% and 91.47% achieved a monocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity of 0.2 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better, respectively. At the same time point, a total of 95.35%, 91.47% and 93.80% achieved a binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity of 0.2 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the postoperative uncorrected and best corrected VA (distance, intermediate, near) at 6 months and postoperative uncorrected and best corrected VA (distance, intermediate, near) at 12 months. None of our patients had any intraoperative complications. Two cases (1.56%) developed posterior capsule opacification. Twelve patients (18.75%) complained about photic phenomena such as glare and haloes, but this symptom disappeared after 6 months postoperatively. As high as93.56% of patients had a high satisfaction with the outcomes of the surgery. Spectacle independence was obtained in 97.65% eyes.ConclusionThe Acrysof Panoptix trifocal artificial lens offers a good vision at distance, intermediate and near, with a good quality of vision and refraction.

The assessment of the impact of glistening on visual performance in relation to tear film quality.

The aim of our case control study was to evaluate the impact of glistening and tear film quality on visual performance after implantation of two different hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs). In our retrospective study we included cataract patients operated between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012, with follow-up controls between January 2016 and December 2019. Z-Flex 860FAB (Medicontur) and AcrySof IQ SN60WF (Alcon) monofocal IOLs were implanted during standard phacoemulsification. Best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and contrast sensitivity were monitored over the post-operative period of up to 6 years. Glistening was evaluated semi-quantitatively with slit-lamp biomicroscopy and quantitatively using Pentacam HR (Oculus). Using HD Analyzer OQAS (Visiometrics), total intraocular light diffusion was interpreted with the objective scatter index (OSI) and tear film quality was evaluated with the tear film related objective scatter index (TF-OSI). 26 eyes implanted with the Z-Flex and 25 eyes with the AcrySof IQ IOLs were included in the analysis. The slit-lamp evaluation of patients with the Z-Flex IOL (0.57 ± 0.60) revealed significantly less glistening (p<0.0001), compared to the AcrySof IQ group (1.82 ± 0.90), and these observations were confirmed by the Pentacam HR analyses, as well (Z-Flex group: 35.1 ± 1.63, Acrysof IQ: 39.6 ± 3.69, p<0.0001). TF-OSI differed between the two sets of patients remarkably (1.53 ± 1.03 vs. 2.51 ± 1.76 for AcrySof IQ and Z-Flex groups, respectively, p = 0.043). Both groups of patients provided similar results of BCDVA and contrast sensitivity. Glistening and tear film quality both contribute to visual performance outcomes after cataract surgery. In our study the advantage of less glistening in the Z-Flex IOL might have been masked by the adverse effects of the more pronounced tear film insufficiency of these patients, compared to the AcrySof IQ group. Among other factors, tear film quality should also be taken into consideration when comparing the impact of glistening on visual quality of patients implanted with different IOLs.

Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix) and extended depth of focus lens (Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 lens).

To compare the visual performance outcomes following bilateral cataract surgery using trifocal intraocular lens (Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix) and extended depth of focus lens (Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 lens). In this prospective, non-randomized, comparative trial, a total of 40 subjects (80 eyes) were divided into two different groups and submitted to bilateral cataract surgery and implantation of the two different IOLs, Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix® TNFT00 in group A and Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 lens (Johnson & Johnson Vision) in group B, was assessed. The uncorrected and corrected near (33cm), intermediate (60cm), and far (4m) binocular visual acuity was measured, and visual binocular defocus curves were also measured in the photopic condition with a long-distance visual acuity and the qualitative visual function was assessed by NEI VFQ-25. Group A comprised 20 patients; 11 women (55%) and 9 men (45%) with a mean age of 62.1 ± 5.4. In group B 20 patients were recruited; 12 women (60%) and 8 men (40%) with a mean age of 63.2 ± 6.1. The postoperatively calculated mean sphere was + 0.35 ± 0.12 D and - 0.14 ± 0.13 D in groups A and B, respectively. The postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) as well as uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) were statistically equal in both groups (P = 0.12, P = 0.17); meanwhile, the postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was significantly better in patients with PanOptix IOL implantation (P = 0.01) compared to the binocular defocus curve; the results of the PanOptix group were better than the Symfony group in intermediate and near distance (P = 0.089, P = 0.001) and according to the VFQ-25 questionnaire, then ear vision score as well as sum score turned out to be significantly higher in groups A than B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Both strategies were able to provide good vision for far, intermediate and near distances.

Presbyopia Correction in Astigmatic Eyes Using a Toric Trifocal Intraocular Lens With Quadrifocal Technology.

To evaluate the visual performance after bilateral implantation of a toric diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a +2.17 diopters (D) (60 cm) intermediate and a +3.25 D (40 cm) addition (add) power. This prospective single-arm study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Twenty-five patients (50 eyes) received bilateral implantation of the toric PanOptix IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Research LLC) before enrollment. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgeries excluding lens surgery and ocular pathologies or corneal abnormalities. Examination at 3 months postoperatively included manifest refraction; monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA) and distance-corrected (DCVA) visual acuity at 4 m and 80, 60, and 40 cm; and slit-lamp examination. At 3 months postoperatively, monocular and binocular defocus, binocular contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and optical phenomena, and spectacle independence were evaluated. Mean refractive spherical equivalent was 0.12 ± 0.380 D and mean refractive cylinder was -0.21 ± 0.237 D at 3 months postoperatively. A significant decrease in refractive cylinder was observed postoperatively (P < .05), with 98% showing a postoperative astigmatism below 0.75 D. Monocular UDVA was better than 0.14 logMAR in all distances. Binocular defocus curve showed peaks at 0.00 D (-0.09 logMAR) and -1.50 and -2.00 D (-0.02 and 0.00 logMAR). The worst values between far (4 m) and near (40 cm) distance were 0.04 logMAR at -1.00 D. Despite some optical phenomena, 92% of patients would choose the same IOL again and recommend it to others. The visual performance of the toric PanOptix IOL showed good visual acuity at all distances; more than 90% achieved a decrease of refractive cylinder below 0.75 D, high patient satisfaction despite some optical phenomena, and high spectacle independence 3 months postoperatively. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(10):638-644.].

Effect of manual, preloaded, and automated preloaded injectors on corneal incision architecture after IOL implantation.

To analyze the effects on corneal morphology of manual, preloaded, and automated preloaded intraocular lens (IOL) injectors in eye bank human corneas by environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) and in patients after phacoemulsification using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). Eye Clinic, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. Retrospective and experimental study. Seventy-eight corneal incisions were examined after IOL implantation: 30 in human corneas mounted on an artificial chamber using ESEM (ex vivo); 48 in patients undergoing phacoemulsification (in vivo). Three different injectors were used for both analyses: manual (Monarch III, n = 26), manual preloaded (UltraSert, n = 26), and automated preloaded system (AutonoMe, n = 26). Thirty IOLs were implanted in the ex vivo study: 5 intermediate and 5 high dioptric powers for AcrySof IQ (Monarch and UltraSert) and for Clareon (AutonoMe) IOLs. In the in vivo analysis, 16 corneal wounds for each injector were evaluated using AS-OCT; in the ex vivo study, incision width was measured and Descemet membrane detachment, posterior wound retraction, and posterior gape were analyzed. In the eye bank corneas, the incision width was significantly wider in the high dioptric power IOL manual subgroup (P < .05), with more Descemet tearing compared with AutonoMe. In the in vivo study, the incidence of Descemet membrane detachment, posterior gape, and wound retraction was lower in the automated preloaded group at 1 postoperative day 1. The automated preloaded injector ensured less trauma to the wound and contributed to preserving the endothelial side of the incision even during the implantation of high-power IOLs and in the early postoperative period.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of 3 trifocal IOLs.

To compare the clinical outcomes obtained after implantation of 1 of 3 models of diffractive trifocal IOLs. Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal. Prospective randomized comparative study. Patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of 1 of 3 models of diffractive trifocal IOLs were enrolled. The IOL models implanted were the FineVision POD F, RayOne Trifocal, or the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL (30 eyes of 15 patients in each group). Visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curve, and contrast sensitivity outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, the Quality of Vision questionnaire (QoV) was used to evaluate the frequency, severity, and discomfort of different visual symptoms. A total of 90 eyes of 45 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in distance, intermediate, and near VA (P ≥ .112) and postoperative refraction (P ≥ .059). Postoperative binocular uncorrected intermediate VA of 0.10 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) or better was found in 14 (93.33%) patients in the 3 groups. Postoperative binocular uncorrected near VA of 0.10 logMAR or better was found in 13 (86.67%), 14 (93.33%), and 13 (86.67%) patients in the POD F, RayOne, and PanOptix IOLs groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in scotopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare and in the QoV scores (P ≥ .057), except for the difference between the POD F and RayOne IOLs groups in depth perception severity, which was less in the RayOne IOL group (P = .019). The 3 trifocal IOLs evaluated provided a complete visual restoration with good visual quality outcomes.

Total Depth of Focus of Five Premium Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

To compare the in vitro optical performance of five premium multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), including a single-valued metric that shows the total range of distances where a multifocal IOL generates an acceptable image quality. Through-focus modulation transfer function (MTF) and the image of a United States Air Force target were obtained for a 3-mm pupil and a wavelength of 546 nm in five multifocal IOLs (Tecnis Symfony [Johnson & Johnson], FineVision Micro F [PhysIOL], Acrysof IQ PanOptix [Novartis], and Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus [Cristalens Industrie] multifocal IOLs). Total depth of focus (TDOF) is computed by adding the vergence intervals where the through-focus MTF at 50 cycles/mm is 0.15 or greater. Due to their different optical designs (bifocal, trifocal, or extended depth of focus), energy is distributed differently between far, intermediate, and near focus for each multifocal IOL. The light distribution of the Symbiose Mid and Plus multifocal IOLs was similar, concentrating the energy into far focus and the intermediate into near focus, but extending the intermediate focus more (Plus) or less (Mid) toward the near focus. TDOFs were: 1.58 diopters [D] (FineVision); 1.71 D (Tecnis Symfony); 1.73 D (Artis Symbiose Plus); 1.74 D (Artis Symbiose Mid); and 1.90 D (Acrysof IQ PanOptix). TDOFs were similar between multifocal IOLs with a maximum difference of 0.32 D and mean value of 1.73 D. The combination of the Symbiose Mid and Plus IOLs can theoretically provide a TDOF of 2.90 D in case one is implanted in one eye and the other in the fellow eye. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(9):578-584.].

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof® IQ and TECNIS® toric intraocular lenses: A real-world study.

Corneal astigmatism significantly compromises uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) after phacoemulsification with implantation of traditional spherical or non-spherical monofocal intraocular lens (IOL). Toric IOL provides an effective way to gain favorable postoperative UCVA for the patients with cataracts with corneal astigmatism. There are numerous types of toric IOLs; however AcrySof® IQ toric IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.) and TECNIS® toric IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision; Johnson & Johnson) are most frequently used in our clinical practice. The purpose of the current study was to compare the clinical efficacy of AcrySof IQ with TECNIS toric IOL implantation, and to provide a clinical basis on selecting an appropriate toric IOL before cataract surgery for patients with corneal astigmatism. A total of 30 patients with cataract (44 eyes) with corneal astigmatism [0.82-7.27 diopters (D)], who have undergone phacoemulsification with toric IOL implantation between October 2012 and December 2017, were included in the current retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups: One group (26 eyes) received the AcrySof IQ toric IOL (AcrySof group) and the other group (18 eyes) received the TECNIS toric IOL (Tecnis group). The indexes of curative effect, such as uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively), refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity (CS), IOL rotation, and satisfaction, were evaluated. Both toric IOLs significantly improved UDVA and CDVA. Postoperative mean residual astigmatism was similar in the AcrySof group and in the Tecnis group (0.75±0.50 and 0.78±0.90 D; P=0.896). There was no statistically significant between postoperative CS in the AcrySof and Tecnis groups. Rotations of >10˚ were considered to be significant and were identified in three eyes. The mean IOL rotation showed no statistically significant difference (AcrySof group, 0.24±5.54˚; Tecnis group, -0.19±6.28˚; P=0.416). The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.46±1.21 in the AcrySof group and 8.78±1.44 in the Tecnis group (P=0.260). The results of the current study indicated that patients with cataracts with corneal astigmatism undergoing phacoemulsification with AcrySof IQ and TECNIS toric IOL implantation achieved similar clinical efficacy in term of visual outcomes, refraction correction, CS, rotational stability and satisfaction.

Visual outcomes and safety after bilateral implantation of a trifocal presbyopia correcting intraocular lens in a Korean population: a prospective single-arm study

BackgroundTo investigate the 3-month postoperative performance and safety after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a Korean population.MethodsThis was a clinical, prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. Forty-four subjects (88 eyes) with bilateral cataract with expected postoperative corneal astigmatism of < 1.00 diopter (D) and no ocular disease or eye condition underwent bilateral implantation of the AcrySof IQ® PanOptix IOL (TFNT00). Postoperative examination at 3 months included binocular defocus curve; binocular best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA); monocular/binocular uncorrected VA (UCVA) at distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm); contrast sensitivity under photopic conditions with/without glare; and subjective outcomes, including satisfaction and spectacle independence.ResultsBinocular defocus curve at 3 months after bilateral implantation showed VA of 0.1 logMAR or better from + 0.5 D through − 2.5 D. Binocular BCDVA mean ± SD at 4 m was − 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR. Binocular and monocular UCVA was 0.03 ± 0.1 and 0.08 ± 0.12 logMAR (4 m), − 0.00 ± 0.11 and 0.05 ± 0.13 logMAR (60 cm), and 0.03 ± 0.12 and 0.09 ± 0.13 logMAR (40 cm), respectively. Contrast sensitivity with glare was 1.67 ± 0.13, 1.91 ± 0.17, 1.54 ± 0.21, and 1.14 ± 0.20 log units at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles/degree, respectively. At near and intermediate distances, 84 and 77% of subjects reported good/excellent satisfaction, and 84 and 91% of subjects reported spectacle independence, respectively.ConclusionsIn a Korean population, visual performance of the trifocal TFNT00 IOL 3 months postoperatively was < 0.1 logMAR for binocular UCVA at all distances, with high subject satisfaction and spectacle independence.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03268746). Registered August 31, 2017.

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant.

Accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II were compared in prediction of postoperative refraction for multifocal and implants using a single optical biometry device. The authors included 88 refractive lens exchange and cataract surgeries, with AcrySof IQ PanOptix implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). All eyes were divided into three groups based on axial length (AL), group 1: <22 mm (14 eyes), group 2: 22-24.5 mm (68 eyes) and group 3: >24.5 mm (6 eyes). The refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated for 5 different formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. For eyes with the AL between 22 mm and 24.5 mm the greatest percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.25 D was 32.4% for Haigis formula, followed by Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 with 29.4%. The percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D was 100% only for Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1, 94.1% for SRK/T and 91.2% for Haigis and Hoffer Q. The first and third group with AL <22 and >24.5 mm were too small to have statistical significance due to the reluctancy to use multifocal IOLs on extreme ALs. ANOVA test showed no statistical difference (P=0.166) between the RPEs measured for each formula in this cohort. This study showed no statistical difference between formulas for this trifocal lens implant. There was a tendency for the RPE to be within ±0.25 D for most of the eyes with the Haigis formula, and within ±0.50 D for all the eyes with the Barrett Universal II formula in the group with the AL between 22 and 24.5 mm.

Long-term objective and subjective outcomes following bilateral implantation of diffractive bifocal or trifocal intraocular lenses.

To evaluate and compare the objective and subjective outcomes after the bilateral implantation of a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens. This is a case-control, single-center observational study which included 27 patients; 16 patients were implanted bilaterally with the bifocal AcrySof IQ ReSTOR+3.0D and 11 patients with the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP. Uncorrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near under mesopic and photopic conditions using ETDRS charts with 10% and 100% contrast, corrected distance visual acuity, and binocular defocus curve in photopic conditions; binocular contrast sensitivity under mesopic and photopic conditions for far and near distances were assessed. The Visual Function Questionnaire-25 questionnaire was used to assess patients' satisfaction. All the measurements were performed 6-24 months after cataract surgery. The ReSTOR group had better binocular uncorrected near visual acuity in photopic conditions with low and high contrast charts (p = 0.040 and p = 0.033, respectively), as well as in far contrast sensitivity measurement under mesopic conditions with a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree (p = 0.034). There was not a significant difference between the two study groups in uncorrected near, intermediate or distance vision under mesopic conditions. The AT LISA tri study group had better subjective outcomes. Both intraocular lenses restore visual acuity after cataract surgery. The ReSTOR intraocular lens provides better objective outcomes than the AT LISA tri, although the latter provides better subjective outcomes. The relevance of this study is the evaluation of both objective and subjective outcomes.